Flaming whip

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Cute. They banned the rolleyes smiley for a reason, you know. Going around that ban just to bring it back in isn't a terribly bright idea.

It doesn't work because it doesn't take into account the addition of any quality that distinguishes the subset from the set.

More bullpuckey. If there is a trait which distinguishes it from the set, causing it to no longer behave like a member of the superset, then it is no longer a member of the superset.

In other words, you're arguing that a flaming whip is no longer beholden to the rules on whips because it isn't a whip any more.

Goodnight, Gracey!

 

[Mark Chance]

More bullpuckey. If there is a trait which distinguishes it from the set, causing it to no longer behave like a member of the superset, then it is no longer a member of the superset.

As I stated: There's a difference between ignored, denied, and shot down. What we have here is more ignoring.

A flaming whip is a whip. A flaming whip is a flaming weapon. It falls into two different subsets, one of whips, and the other flaming weapons. Neither subset can be legimitately ignored, no matter how hard you try to do so with the latter subset.

Your turn.

* A flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

* A successful hit is an attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.

Therefore, any flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage with any attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.​

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1. It is impossible for a man to ovulate. (Rule)
2. All husbands are men. (Lemma)
3. If a husband ovulates, then a man has ovulated.
4. This is a contradiction.

Ergo, husbands cannot ovulate.

If #3 actually occured, it would not support your conclusion, but would rather refute either the rule or the lemma.

(For those who don't know: Lemma: A subsidiary proposition assumed to be valid and used to demonstrate a principal proposition)

The syllogism for this thread's question is:

1. A whip is a weapon does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
2. "Flaming" is a magical enhancement to weapons that deals fire damage upon a successful hit (Lemma)
3. Therefore, if a flaming whip scores a successful hit against an armored opponent, it does no whip damage + 1d6 fire damage from the Flaming enhancement.

 

[Caliban]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
I'm thinking it still has wings.

I'm thinking you're still wrong.

I'm still thinking your funny.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm still thinking your funny.

And your point would be?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If #3 actually occured, it would not support your conclusion, but would rather refute either the rule or the lemma.

True. Which means, what in this case?

That either the rule on whips is wrong - a whip *can* do damage to an armored target - or that a flaming whip is not a whip.

Your choice.

 

[Storyteller01]

I can't recall the last time someone touched a mummy with a live

every time an embombed person (or organ doner; them crazy organ harvesters )gets cremated?

 

[Ace]

There used to be a whip design that had a length of metal attached to he end. Wasn't a whip dagger (metal wasn't a blade) but it was designed to penetrate armor. Was rather difficult to use though.

Is that an urumi? The urumi is a fairly stupid indian weapon that is a whip sword. It is used in Kalipuryat

 

[Ace]

The fun and easy thing to do is to allow Mr. Balrog wanna-be to do 1d6 with his flaming whip -- even if it not specifically RAW -- its fun and won't break the game

A whip should also be allowed to be vorpral -- simply because its cool to see a whip wrap around a neck and pop off a head with a twist fo the wrist

besides the whip is worthless in D&D anyway -- who cares if you give a magic one a little boost

 

[IcyCool]

The syllogism for this thread's question is:

1. A whip is a weapon does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
2. "Flaming" is a magical enhancement to weapons that deals fire damage upon a successful hit (Lemma)
3. Therefore, if a flaming whip scores a successful hit against an armored opponent, it does no whip damage + 1d6 fire damage from the Flaming enhancement.

#2 in your post here is incorrect. The enhancement doesn't deal the fire damage, the weapon does. And that is what is causing the whole problem. House rule it and be done, I say. It certainly isn't the first time the letter of the rules was idiotic.